Talk:God (Sha Ka Ree)
PNA Needs more information about the various forms the entity took, the fact that it was "imprisoned" on the planet (by whom is unknown) and its purpose for bringing Sybok there - namely to escape. Could also do with some notes on the actions it took against Kirk et al, and their reaction to it. Logan 5 21:54, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Also, it seems they assume the entity is God, it never explicly says so, unless you can count the "One Voice, many faces" statement, which doesn't seem like it. Linkguy77 (talk) 07:00, November 1, 2019 (UTC) Sha Ka Ree entity (from VfD) ;Sha Ka Ree entity: This appears to be well documented under God, as are all of the images this entity portrayed (or was intended to portray). --Alan del Beccio 02:16, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Redirect(?) -- Cid Highwind 08:25, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC) *support redirect -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * The article needs work but I have to say keep, the Sha Ka Ree entity is a character from Star Trek 5. Although I am not sure the name is correct, deleting him because he is also covered under god isn't a good reason. Each character gets his or her own page. --TOSrules 20:34, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Definitely keep. The article needs a lot of work but this is a specific character entity and so deserves its own article. There's a lot of info that should be there and isn't including how it contacted Sybok, the fact that it was "imprisoned" there (we don't know by whom), etc. But definitely deserving of its own entry. Logan 5 21:50, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC) * -- i believe the point is that he isn't God, therefore the article "god" doesn't describe him well. Is this the best naming convention to move his information to? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:45, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC) **Works for me. Also, God seems to hold up ok as it is, the info does not need to be moved. Sha Ka Ree entity is a whole different topic. Jaf 13:29, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)Jaf *** I think that about covers what i was tring to say --TOSrules 22:27, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC) * I've moved it to God of Sha Ka Ree (for now) to reflect the fact that he was referenced in the end credits of the movies as "God", the next logical step would be to add the god "of what?" -- although the planet wasn't technically "Sha Ka Ree", we refer to it as such on this website. --Alan del Beccio 09:08, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) * I think the old name was better, because the ShaKaRee Entity is not the god of ShaKaRee, who is Kuitu. The credits may be have him as God, but the script says he isn't god. --TOSrules 09:12, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) * But that is what he was attempting to prove (or fool others into believing) himself to be the "God of Sha Ka Ree", that was Syboks entire interpretation of the person and the place throughout the movie, so that is the perspective we should follow. Otherwise, if you cannot accept "God of Sha Ka Ree", because he really isn't "God", then I cannot accept "Sha Ka Ree entity" because the planet he was on wasn't really "Sha Ka Ree." --Alan del Beccio 06:09, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC) :*Well, it was located within the Great Barrier -- how about we move it to something like "Great Barrier entity" or, if you want to use how he was credited on ST5, maybe "God (Great Barrier)"? --From Andoria with Love 18:00, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC) :*I have reworked the article to where it describes not only the being but what the God of Sha Ka Ree was, so I don't think there should be any more reason to hold this up for deletion. --From Andoria with Love 10:00, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) *If the entity was credited as "god", then there's no real need to discuss any further. Credits are what we already based several article titles on, why should this one be any different? The only thing we need to discuss is what qualifier to use, since the title God is already in use. God (Great Barrier) as Shran suggested, or perhaps God (galactic center)/God (imposter)/... , seem to be good candidates. -- Cid Highwind 10:57, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) :*Okay, I propose that we move God of Sha Ka Ree to God (Great Barrier) or God (false), keep God of Sha Ka Ree as either an article for that aspect of Vulcan mythology or as a redirect to God (Great Barrier), and also keep Sha Ka Ree entity as a redirect to God (Great Barier). How is that? --From Andoria with Love 12:26, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) Sha Ka Ree Entity name change I have moved this back to it's original title, "Sha Ka Ree Entity" because this Entity is not a God of any sort. If a person wants the name changed I believe the entire community should take this up. If there is no consensus, we can hold a vote on possible names. Or we can keep it as "Sha Ka Ree Entity" which is fine with me. --TOSrules 10:46, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) :I think you're confused, my man. This article is about the aspect of the God of Sha Ka Ree, not the entity itself. In any case, you should have brought it up here before moving it. There is currently a conversation on this over at the Votes for Deletion page, so please refrain from any action until this is settled over there. --From Andoria with Love 11:59, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::Shran you are wrong, the original article was about the Entity found in the center of the galaxy, and on the Vote for Deletion page we agreed it was an article about that character. It should have been brought up here before being moved to "God of Sha Ka Ree". The article was re-written in a way that it should have been named Clav Setu who is the God of Sha Ka Ree. So even if you wish a title using the term God the old article was a totally inappropriate move. --TOSrules 19:15, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::I think a page move to Sha Ka Ree entity or Sha Ka Ree lifeform is in order. the "god of Sha Ka Ree" isn't sufficiently descriptive, IMO -- he isn't actually a God, just a powerful lifeform (albeit one who creates God in our own images -- to paraphrase Decker paraphrasing religion itself). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:43, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::In the VfD-discussion above, Alan correctly stated that the planet this "entity/lifeform" was found on wasn't "Sha Ka Ree", either - so we shouldn't use that as part of the article title. However, that character was specifically credited as "God" in the movie, so I see no problem in using that combined with a qualifier. I don't like "God (false)" (sounds like boolean algebra and/or Teal'q-speak ;) ), but the other suggestion seem to be fine. -- Cid Highwind 12:57, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::Well, it is possible for the place to be named identically to a mythical place -- for example the planet Eden was still called Eden, even after the Enterprise crew suspected it wasn't in . -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:04, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) :Another possibility is God (alien). Or maybe God (entity)? --From Andoria with Love 13:24, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::Well, and that glowing guy was still called "God", even after it became obvious that he wasn't the God. ;) So, what about God (Sha Ka Ree)? -- Cid Highwind 13:56, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) :That's another possibility, but problem with that is one might argue the planet he was imprisoned in wasn't Sha Ka Ree. Oy, this is going to take a while... --From Andoria with Love 14:30, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::Yeah, which is what Mike already said and what I replied to... ;) :::Looking at our naming conventions, I see no reason not to use the name used to refer to this character in the movie - which happens to be "God", whether that usage was correct or not. Also, it seems to be a good idea to use the name of the planet this character existed on as a qualifier. The article about this planet has the title "Sha Ka Ree" (again, "correct or not"). In combination, God (Sha Ka Ree) is the most convenient name in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 16:40, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) I object to this creature being called a God, unlike Apollo there is no canon knowledge of this creature being at Vulcan. Heck the old gods of Vulcan probably had something to do with Sargon, but that is speculation. Anyways, if you want a title using the word god, it should be named "God (Impersonator)" or something to that effect because at least it has a bit of accuracy. As for the planet itself, that debate should occur on that planets talk page. --TOSrules 19:15, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) *I think the fact of the matter is...is that this entity sought out Sybok and lured him to the planet under the pretense that he was God and that the planet that he was seeking was Sha Ka Ree. It therefore seems the best way to approach the article is to have the article written in the point of view of that which Sybok perceived the character in-- only to be revealed at the end of the article to instead be a malevolent entity imprisioned on a planet at the center of the galaxy, believed to be Sha Ka Ree, impersonating (of all things) God. Now for some reason malevolent entity imprisioned on a planet at the center of the galaxy, which is the most accurate description, seems a bit much. With that said, both my move suggestion (to reflect what it wanted the people seeking him to think he was) and Shran's rewrite (to reflect p.o.v.) reflected that. --Alan del Beccio 20:47, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) Shran please... Shran please be an adult, and revert the article back to it's original title "Sha Ka Ree Entity" Because this article isn't about Clav Setu. --TOSrules 19:22, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) :I don't agree with your tone or attitude, but this article should indeed be about the imprisoned being at the galactical center, not one of the "gods" it impersonated. I will revert to an earlier version. BTW, there's no "Clav Setu", please see my comment on Talk:Vulcan mythology. -- Cid Highwind 19:59, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) You are right Cid, I sort of blew my top, over nothing. Although I do stand by the need for this article to be about it's original intent. I did a bit of research and found a script for ST5, the script I found says "Qual se tu" which is a variation on what Spock said Earlier "Qual es tu". I wonder if that could be a typo. But I guess there is no support for Clav Setu, which is what the caption says. I would like to apologies again. --TOSrules 20:27, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) Final thoughts Whatever you decide to call it, the consensus seems to be that this should be about the being itself, so I've edited it to reflect that. In the meantime, if the being was called "Qual se tu" in the script but "God" in the film's credits... I don't know. As Alan pointed out to me, Qual se tu could very well be the Vulcan term for God, so I don't think we should go on that. God (Sha Ka Ree), God (Great Barrier), or God (impersonator) seem the way to go. Now if we could just choose one and be done with it. --From Andoria with Love 03:08, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC) Are we still discussining this, or did we decide to do the same thing Paramount did with the movie itself -- sweep it under the rug and act as though it never happened? ;) --From Andoria with Love 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Final final thoughts To finally end this... I re-read the whole discussion above. There were more than 10 suggestions for a better/other title - a big majority of them following the "Title (qualifier)" naming scheme. Of those 8 suggestions, two were mentioned more than once, God (Great Barrier) and God (Sha Ka Ree). Since the second suggestion seems to be more descriptive, and the "Sha Ka Ree" part is already in use, I'll move this page there now. -- Cid Highwind 11:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC) ''Q Continuum '' So..... basically, this novel is an attempt to retcon all the aspects of TOS that fall into the category of "hopelessly silly"? Q, the Gorgan, Sha Ka Ree, and Trelane walk into a Great Barrier, Q says "ouch"..-- 16:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Image gallery Didn't we decide to move away from custom image galleries and instead use the built-in gallery function? -- Cid Highwind 14:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Doesn't the third face from top left kind of resemble Darth Andeddu? 19:05, August 7, 2018 (UTC)User:Carycomic Moved from article Joe Menosky, who wrote the episode , has said that he believes that the creature seen in this film is a renegade Cytherian. ---- The above had a "incite" tagged on for quite some time. I couldn't find any online interview with Menosky, no commentary track on the DVDs and apparently no entry in the TNG Companion (thanks, Jörg). So, please don't re-add it to the article without a good reference. -- Cid Highwind 22:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :Yeah, I couldn't find anything on it either, and I meant to remove the info awhile back but I forgot about it. I, too, think it's been up long enough, though; if someone wants it back in, they should supply a source. --From Andoria with Love 02:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)